Speaking in 'tongues'

[Outrider]

As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?

No, there is nothing anyone recognises as facts - there is methodology by which supernatural claims, either competing or in isolation, can be assessed to determine if they have any validity. They remain not only unproven but unprovable, and therefore are not facts but just assertions.

O.

[Alien]

OK, over to you to demonstrate your claim is correct. No hurry.

So you're asking me to prove a negative by demonstrating the absence of something which you already know to be the case, then?

No, I am asking you to prove what you described as a "positive claim" in #374. Here it is again from you, "That's right, and I'm making that positive claim on the grounds that there are no facts which back up god stories."

[Outrider]

Why do you think that to be the case? You are making a positive claim here and thus the burden of proof is yours.

No, the burden of proof still lies with you, he's simply making the case that you've failed to prove your case. You make the claim there are facts supporting religion, yet you've failed to demonstrate it.

O.

[Andy]

How does one present no facts?

[Alien]

As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?

No, there is nothing anyone recognises as facts - there is methodology by which supernatural claims, either competing or in isolation, can be assessed to determine if they have any validity. They remain not only unproven but unprovable, and therefore are not facts but just assertions.

O.

Shaker says there are no facts, not just that he does not recognise them as facts. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him. Simples.

[Shaker]

How does one present no facts?

Quite.

[Alien]

Why do you think that to be the case? You are making a positive claim here and thus the burden of proof is yours.

No, the burden of proof still lies with you, he's simply making the case that you've failed to prove your case. You make the claim there are facts supporting religion, yet you've failed to demonstrate it.

O.

No he did not say that. He said there are no such facts. Read his posts.

[Shaker]

Shaker says there are no facts, not just that he does not recognise them as facts. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him. Simples.

As Andy has just said, how do you present 'no facts'?

The method is probably hiding out in the same place as your methodology for assessing supernatural claims, Alan 

[Alien]

How does one present no facts?

Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why." Something a bit humbler.

Off to do some work.

[Outrider]

No he did not say that. He said there are no such facts. Read his posts.

And, to date, he's right - there are no facts. If that changes we'll need to review the situation, but before that happens you need to posit a methodology that would allow a critical review of the claims with a means by which we could establish their veracity.

In the absence of a methodology or system, there can be no facts. Don't get me wrong, in that sense it's a subjective decision on whether the outcome of the body of scientific work done by humanity constitutes 'facts' in any meaningful sense.

O.

[Shaker]

How does one present no facts?

Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why."

I did indeed ask you (in #369) to present to us what you regard as these "facts" that back up god stories, but needless to say ...

Something a bit humbler.

I leave humility to those who are supposed to think it a virtue.

[Andy]

How does one present no facts?

Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why." Something a bit humbler.

Off to do some work.

"I see no ships". What he really should have said is, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge".
"There are no biscuits in the barrel." What he really should have said is, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge".

I take it you say this every time you claim there is a nothing?

[Alien]

No he did not say that. He said there are no such facts. Read his posts.

And, to date, he's right - there are no facts. If that changes we'll need to review the situation, but before that happens you need to posit a methodology that would allow a critical review of the claims with a means by which we could establish their veracity.

In the absence of a methodology or system, there can be no facts.

... "which back up the god stories".

That is incorrect. It would mean, at most, that there would be no way of determining or identifying those facts.

Don't get me wrong, in that sense it's a subjective decision on whether the outcome of the body of scientific work done by humanity constitutes 'facts' in any meaningful sense.

O.

Fairy nuff.

[Alien]

How does one present no facts?

Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why."

I did indeed ask you (in #369) to present to us what you regard as these "facts" that back up god stories, but needless to say ...

Yes, I know you did. However, you then went on to assert that there are no such facts. That is a positive claim and I am under no obligation to come up with evidence for the opposite of your claim.

Something a bit humbler.

I leave humility to those who are supposed to think it a virtue.

OK.

[Alien]

How does one present no facts?

Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why." Something a bit humbler.

Off to do some work.

"I see no ships". What he really should have said is, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge".
"There are no biscuits in the barrel." What he really should have said is, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge".

Seeing an empty space in a biscuit barrel is good evidence that there are no biscuits in there (unless you are arguing for the existence of invisible biscuits).

I take it you say this every time you claim there is a nothing?

"There is a nothing"? What's that in English?

[Shaker]

Seeing an empty space in a biscuit barrel is good evidence that there are no biscuits in there (unless you are arguing for the existence of invisible biscuits).

... just as people who believe in invisible entities like gods and expect other people to take them seriously argue for the existence of invisible entities.

[Alien]

Seeing an empty space in a biscuit barrel is good evidence that there are no biscuits in there (unless you are arguing for the existence of invisible biscuits).

... just as people who believe in invisible entities like gods and expect other people to take them seriously argue for the existence of invisible entities.

So you only believe in things you can actually see then?

Looking forward to you trying to back up your claim, by the way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well now you have stated there is ''science and just guessing'' I'm sure you, being on the side of the angels, will subscribe to a policy of Sola scientia and remain silent about anything which isn't science.

Yours

looking forward to not hearing from you (unless it is about science)

Here's what actually happened.

You said: "Secondly, rather than science and religion, we should more correctly be talking about science and non science since any difference/conflict is being specially pleaded if we only consider religion."

To which I replied: "Or perhaps “science and just guessing”, but ok."

Notice that I characterised only religion as "just guessing" (presumably something with which you agree in respect of all the claims gods you don't think to exist). That though says nothing to whether we can't readily discuss aesthetics, morality etc when the proponents make no claims to objective factual truths.

The problem comes when theists say something like, "miracle X actually happened" and then look to naturalistic concepts like scientific evidence or the historical method to prove it and thus fall flat on their faces or, as in your case, when they just assert it and expect everyone else to take their claims seriously.

Sorry, but philosophical naturalism is still just a punt.
You know that and I know that because I've been through that phase.
Science doesn't help you Blue not even waving it shamanically like wot you are doing.

[Shaker]

Yes, I know you did. However, you then went on to assert that there are no such facts. That is a positive claim and I am under no obligation to come up with evidence for the opposite of your claim.

This is an online chat forum. No one is under any obligation to do anything. However, if you think I am wrong in stating that there are no facts that back up god stories - that's to say, you think there are such facts - then the simplest way of showing me to be wrong would be to provide them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seeing an empty space in a biscuit barrel is good evidence that there are no biscuits in there (unless you are arguing for the existence of invisible biscuits).

... just as people who believe in invisible entities like gods and expect other people to take them seriously argue for the existence of invisible entities.

Sorry Shakes but when you play the invisible entity card we know you conceive of them as old men with beards or little nippers with green faces.

[Shaker]

No Vlad; I don't conceive of them at all, because that would be very, very silly indeed.

[Andy]

Yes, I know you did. However, you then went on to assert that there are no such facts. That is a positive claim and I am under no obligation to come up with evidence for the opposite of your claim.

This is an online chat forum. No one is under any obligation to do anything. However, if you think I am wrong in stating that there are no facts that back up god stories - that's to say, you think there are such facts - then the simplest way of showing me to be wrong would be to provide them.

No Shakes, go and scour the known universe so you can conclusively say there are no facts while I sit on one I think I have...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Notice that I characterised only religion as "just guessing" (presumably something with which you agree in respect of all the claims gods you don't think to exist).

No, I think other gods are obviously expressions of the divine.
I find your use of the word gods and the context you put that in to be just an extension of your mocking argumentum ad ridiculum playing to the gallery.

Again you seem to be pleading for science as a non overlapping magisterium and yet posturing as a POMA exponent......in other word you have been stretched to breaking point in your gymnastic opposition.

Science doesn't help and support your arguments Blue.

[Shaker]

  That's the size of it Andy - that and Hoppity's "I don't have to provide any evidence for my claims because I've already done it ... somewhere."

"Where and when, Hoppity?"

"Here, before."

"But specifically?"

The rest is silence.

[Andy]

I often play the game with my litlun where she'll go out of the room while I'll hide a toy. On the odd occasion I'll hide the toy on myself so she'll search the room, not find a thing and say it's not here. It's a bit of a tease - a bit of a torment hiding it on myself but all harmless giggles to a 2 year old. Pissing around like this in adult conversation is, however, no different - childish.